Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.123-134
Y. Volkov
Based on works by representatives of the Marxist and the Eurasian direction, the article considers arguments “for” and “against” S. M. Solovyov’s conception of the “struggle between the forest and the steppe” as an important part of his historiological and philosophical-historical doctrine. This essay shows that the main arguments against Solovyov’s conception are connected to the interpretations of historical facts corresponding to the theoretical positions of the Marxist and Eurasian paradigms of history. They include: the thesis about the class character of the Russian state and of the state enslavement of the population; that of the subordination of the course of a nation’s history to the action of universal historical laws; that of the decisive role of geographical and ethnic factors; that of the mutual influence of the “forest” and the “steppe” on the formation of the Eurasian state. To determine the balance of arguments “for” and “against” the conception of the “struggle between the forest and the steppe,” the author proposes to use the model of a structural and hierarchical history, where there are stable and dynamic levels in space and time. The essay concludes that the geohistorical fact of the division of the East European plain into forest and steppe belts, which makes it possible to theoretically explain the premises behind the conception of the “struggle between the forest and the steppe, raises no objections from any of the critics of such a struggle. At the same time, historical facts concerning the understanding of the nature of social integrity, on the level at which the struggle took place, lead to fundamentally different theoretical interpretations. Even more discrepancies are found concerning the causes of the changes that determine the historical dynamics. As the real course of history shows, in a changing and interconnected world, such causes can actually become a global conflict of cultures.
{"title":"S.М. Solovyov’s Conception of the “Struggle between the Forest and the Steppe”: “For” and “Against”","authors":"Y. Volkov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.123-134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.123-134","url":null,"abstract":"Based on works by representatives of the Marxist and the Eurasian direction, the article considers arguments “for” and “against” S. M. Solovyov’s conception of the “struggle between the forest and the steppe” as an important part of his historiological and philosophical-historical doctrine. This essay shows that the main arguments against Solovyov’s conception are connected to the interpretations of historical facts corresponding to the theoretical positions of the Marxist and Eurasian paradigms of history. They include: the thesis about the class character of the Russian state and of the state enslavement of the population; that of the subordination of the course of a nation’s history to the action of universal historical laws; that of the decisive role of geographical and ethnic factors; that of the mutual influence of the “forest” and the “steppe” on the formation of the Eurasian state. To determine the balance of arguments “for” and “against” the conception of the “struggle between the forest and the steppe,” the author proposes to use the model of a structural and hierarchical history, where there are stable and dynamic levels in space and time. The essay concludes that the geohistorical fact of the division of the East European plain into forest and steppe belts, which makes it possible to theoretically explain the premises behind the conception of the “struggle between the forest and the steppe, raises no objections from any of the critics of such a struggle. At the same time, historical facts concerning the understanding of the nature of social integrity, on the level at which the struggle took place, lead to fundamentally different theoretical interpretations. Even more discrepancies are found concerning the causes of the changes that determine the historical dynamics. As the real course of history shows, in a changing and interconnected world, such causes can actually become a global conflict of cultures.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"20 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126221280","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.182-194
V. Alieva
The olfactory space in the novel “Against the Grain” (“À rebours”) by J.-C. Huysmans is for the first time analysed from the perspective of Kulturphilosophie. A number of methods, particularly analytical and historical-cultural, can be used to examine this topic. At the same time, the approach of Kulturphilosophie can be applied to the semantic field of the phenomenon of smell. The article deals with the research experience of flower-images and perfume aspects concerning odoric passages in the novel. The text of the novel “Against the Grain” is examined in detail. Specific features of the use of natural, artificial, metaphysical odorisms or components referring to them are revealed. Particular attention is paid to the meaning and symbolism of some of the scents included in the novel, which have come to mark the epoch of “fin de siècle”. On the basis of the analysis of the novel’s olfactory, the olfactory and near-olfactory passages composing the text’s odoristic universe are classified into four groups, taking into account the origin (natural – artificial), the type of perception (syncretic), reality or unreality of embodiment (real – metaphysical). The Kulturphilosophie approach to the novel “Against the Grain” makes it possible to reveal the objectifications of smells, to structure them, to trace their role in revealing the author's creative intentions, and to decipher their hidden meanings, comparing them with cultural trends and creative experiments of the “fin de siècle” epoch.
{"title":"Kulturphilosophie of Smell in the Novel “Against Nature” (“À rebours”) by J.-C. Huysmans","authors":"V. Alieva","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.182-194","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.182-194","url":null,"abstract":"The olfactory space in the novel “Against the Grain” (“À rebours”) by J.-C. Huysmans is for the first time analysed from the perspective of Kulturphilosophie. A number of methods, particularly analytical and historical-cultural, can be used to examine this topic. At the same time, the approach of Kulturphilosophie can be applied to the semantic field of the phenomenon of smell. The article deals with the research experience of flower-images and perfume aspects concerning odoric passages in the novel. The text of the novel “Against the Grain” is examined in detail. Specific features of the use of natural, artificial, metaphysical odorisms or components referring to them are revealed. Particular attention is paid to the meaning and symbolism of some of the scents included in the novel, which have come to mark the epoch of “fin de siècle”. On the basis of the analysis of the novel’s olfactory, the olfactory and near-olfactory passages composing the text’s odoristic universe are classified into four groups, taking into account the origin (natural – artificial), the type of perception (syncretic), reality or unreality of embodiment (real – metaphysical). The Kulturphilosophie approach to the novel “Against the Grain” makes it possible to reveal the objectifications of smells, to structure them, to trace their role in revealing the author's creative intentions, and to decipher their hidden meanings, comparing them with cultural trends and creative experiments of the “fin de siècle” epoch.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"14 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126154217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-09-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.135-153
I. Demin
The article analyzes and compares two interpretations of the “social question” and the ways of solving it as they are offered in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. A particular attention is paid to the connection between the “social question” and the problem of “Christian socialism”. While acknowledging the general importance of the social issues for the Christian mindset, both philosophers traced the origin of social injustice to the human nature rather than to the social structure. In both interpretations, in fact, the value of social justice is inferior in its hierarchal status to the value of Christian love. However, while they both rejected the socialist utopia of a “paradise on Earth” and the idea of a “Christian socialism”, Berdyaev and Frank radically diverged in their interpretation and assessment of socialism as a social system. This article highlights the fact that Berdyaev combines a criticism of the ideological claims concerning atheistic and materialist socialism with an uncritical acceptance of a number of socialist ideologies (e.g. “class struggle” and “exploitation”) and assumptions. Unlike Berdyaev, in interpreting the “social issue” Frank tended to distance himself from both classical liberalism (with its notions of private property, freedom, and state) and from socialism, which he considered as another ideological extremity. Frank’s social philosophy treats the thesis that the socialist system is more consistent and successful than others in tackling the “social issue” as an empirically dubious assumption. On the contrary, Berdyaev took this thesis for granted and used it as the starting point of his reasoning. This divergence, along with the fact that the same key terms were often used by the two philosophers in different (ideological) meanings, partly accounts for their differences in the interpretation of the “social question” and in the assessment of socialism.
{"title":"Christianity and the “Social Question” in N.А. Berdyaev’s and S.L. Frank’s Philosophical Works","authors":"I. Demin","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.135-153","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.3.135-153","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes and compares two interpretations of the “social question” and the ways of solving it as they are offered in the works of N.A. Berdyaev and S.L. Frank. A particular attention is paid to the connection between the “social question” and the problem of “Christian socialism”. While acknowledging the general importance of the social issues for the Christian mindset, both philosophers traced the origin of social injustice to the human nature rather than to the social structure. In both interpretations, in fact, the value of social justice is inferior in its hierarchal status to the value of Christian love. However, while they both rejected the socialist utopia of a “paradise on Earth” and the idea of a “Christian socialism”, Berdyaev and Frank radically diverged in their interpretation and assessment of socialism as a social system. This article highlights the fact that Berdyaev combines a criticism of the ideological claims concerning atheistic and materialist socialism with an uncritical acceptance of a number of socialist ideologies (e.g. “class struggle” and “exploitation”) and assumptions. Unlike Berdyaev, in interpreting the “social issue” Frank tended to distance himself from both classical liberalism (with its notions of private property, freedom, and state) and from socialism, which he considered as another ideological extremity. Frank’s social philosophy treats the thesis that the socialist system is more consistent and successful than others in tackling the “social issue” as an empirically dubious assumption. On the contrary, Berdyaev took this thesis for granted and used it as the starting point of his reasoning. This divergence, along with the fact that the same key terms were often used by the two philosophers in different (ideological) meanings, partly accounts for their differences in the interpretation of the “social question” and in the assessment of socialism.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125726238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.114-134
A. Rychkov
This article considers the problem of the historical sources reflected in Blok’s drama “The Rose and the Cross”. It demonstrates that Blok’s marginalia in the books of his library serve as an indication of the unknown literary and historical sources of the “Notes” on the Albigensian crusade in the drama “The Rose and the Cross”, and can also be used in interpreting the symbolism of this drama. The marginal notes on the history of the Albigensian crusade that Blok made while working on the play are drawn on as a scholarly source for the first time. In the Appendice to the article facsimiles of Blok’s notes on the Albigensian crusade are published for the first time, accompanied by commentaries and a concordance.
{"title":"A. Blok’s Marginalia on the Albigensian Crusade as an Indication of the Historical Sources of “Notes” in the Drama “The Rose and the Cross”","authors":"A. Rychkov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.114-134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.114-134","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the problem of the historical sources reflected in Blok’s drama “The Rose and the Cross”. It demonstrates that Blok’s marginalia in the books of his library serve as an indication of the unknown literary and historical sources of the “Notes” on the Albigensian crusade in the drama “The Rose and the Cross”, and can also be used in interpreting the symbolism of this drama. The marginal notes on the history of the Albigensian crusade that Blok made while working on the play are drawn on as a scholarly source for the first time. In the Appendice to the article facsimiles of Blok’s notes on the Albigensian crusade are published for the first time, accompanied by commentaries and a concordance.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129090701","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.084-113
T. Németh
This essay explores the writings of Georgij Chelpanov, who recognized the value of both psychology and philosophy, much to the displeasure of all. Chelpanov only very guardedly expressed his own philosophical views, which stand, I conclude, in stark contrast with the neo-Kantianisms of both the Marburg and the Baden Schools. We see that in his earliest writings on spatial perception, he not so much differs with Kant as saw the matter from a different perspective. Nonetheless, he shares Kant’s affirmation that the universality and necessity associated with our representation of space affirms its apriority as a condition of cognition, particularly with respect to mathematics. Chelpanov departs from Kant in rejecting the exclusive subjectivity of space and time, arguing that there is something in noumenal reality that corresponds to our specific representations of an object’s temporal and spatial position. Otherwise, there is no way to account for their specificity, for why a perceived object is here and not there. Chelpanov argues this from a psychological viewpoint, but he acknowledges that Kant argues from a logical viewpoint. Turning to the issue of free will, he, in short, argues for a soft determinism that is quite consistent with Kantianism, even though Chelpanov’s argument is bereft of the metaphysics and the architectonic of Kant’s system. In conclusion, although scholars dispute his allegiance to neo-Kantianism, his philosophical writings demonstrate his subdued advocacy of a neo-Kantianism, albeit one more akin to the transcendental realism of Riehl and Paulsen.
{"title":"Chelpanov: The Psychologist as a Realist Neo-Kantian","authors":"T. Németh","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.084-113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.084-113","url":null,"abstract":"This essay explores the writings of Georgij Chelpanov, who recognized the value of both psychology and philosophy, much to the displeasure of all. Chelpanov only very guardedly expressed his own philosophical views, which stand, I conclude, in stark contrast with the neo-Kantianisms of both the Marburg and the Baden Schools. We see that in his earliest writings on spatial perception, he not so much differs with Kant as saw the matter from a different perspective. Nonetheless, he shares Kant’s affirmation that the universality and necessity associated with our representation of space affirms its apriority as a condition of cognition, particularly with respect to mathematics. Chelpanov departs from Kant in rejecting the exclusive subjectivity of space and time, arguing that there is something in noumenal reality that corresponds to our specific representations of an object’s temporal and spatial position. Otherwise, there is no way to account for their specificity, for why a perceived object is here and not there. Chelpanov argues this from a psychological viewpoint, but he acknowledges that Kant argues from a logical viewpoint. Turning to the issue of free will, he, in short, argues for a soft determinism that is quite consistent with Kantianism, even though Chelpanov’s argument is bereft of the metaphysics and the architectonic of Kant’s system. In conclusion, although scholars dispute his allegiance to neo-Kantianism, his philosophical writings demonstrate his subdued advocacy of a neo-Kantianism, albeit one more akin to the transcendental realism of Riehl and Paulsen.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130979057","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.068-083
M. Medovarov
This article considers the issue of the continuity and discontinuity of the historical process within the legacy of the Russian philosophers of the first half of the twentieth century. Its main task is to reconstruct their understanding of the category of discontinuity in relation to social sciences and the humanities in the works of N.V. Bugaev, V.G. Alekseev, P.A. Florensky, V.F. Ern, and L.P. Karsavin. This task is accomplished by carrying out a comparative historical study of the works of these philosophers in the context of their mutual influence and of how the given topics are developed. The research, which was conducted mainly on the existing historiography of the Moscow School of Philosophy and Mathematics, identifies a number of lacunae regarding the category of continuity/discontinuity. While this issue was first raised by Nikolai Bugaev and Vissarion Alekseev, it was Pavel Florensky who suggested a solution to the problem by applying the theory of discontinuous functions used in arithmology to the historical process. Florensky’s efforts were initially fruitless, however, and it was not until after 1905 that he succeeded in doing so. It has been proven that Vladimir Ern radicalized Florensky’s thoughts and made significant progress in understanding the topic of discontinuity within the historical process and the progress of mankind. Considerable attention is also paid to the reasons for the repressions enacted against the Moscow school during the Soviet period. Finally, Lev Karsavin’s relationship with this line of study of discontinuity in Russian philosophy is clarified and the place of Karsavin’s early and late works in the study of the category of continuity and discontinuity in the history of mankind is also considered. The conclusion of this article deals with the relevance of this legacy of Russian philosophers in contemporary epistemology and the methodology of history.
{"title":"The Issue of the Continuity and Discontinuity of the Historical Process in Russian Religious Philosophy","authors":"M. Medovarov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.068-083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.068-083","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the issue of the continuity and discontinuity of the historical process within the legacy of the Russian philosophers of the first half of the twentieth century. Its main task is to reconstruct their understanding of the category of discontinuity in relation to social sciences and the humanities in the works of N.V. Bugaev, V.G. Alekseev, P.A. Florensky, V.F. Ern, and L.P. Karsavin. This task is accomplished by carrying out a comparative historical study of the works of these philosophers in the context of their mutual influence and of how the given topics are developed. The research, which was conducted mainly on the existing historiography of the Moscow School of Philosophy and Mathematics, identifies a number of lacunae regarding the category of continuity/discontinuity. While this issue was first raised by Nikolai Bugaev and Vissarion Alekseev, it was Pavel Florensky who suggested a solution to the problem by applying the theory of discontinuous functions used in arithmology to the historical process. Florensky’s efforts were initially fruitless, however, and it was not until after 1905 that he succeeded in doing so. It has been proven that Vladimir Ern radicalized Florensky’s thoughts and made significant progress in understanding the topic of discontinuity within the historical process and the progress of mankind. Considerable attention is also paid to the reasons for the repressions enacted against the Moscow school during the Soviet period. Finally, Lev Karsavin’s relationship with this line of study of discontinuity in Russian philosophy is clarified and the place of Karsavin’s early and late works in the study of the category of continuity and discontinuity in the history of mankind is also considered. The conclusion of this article deals with the relevance of this legacy of Russian philosophers in contemporary epistemology and the methodology of history.","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115253277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.135-142
A. Rychkov
{"title":"Appendix. A. Blok’s Excerpt about the Albigensian Crusade from the Works on General History by O. Jäger and F. Schlosser","authors":"A. Rychkov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.135-142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.135-142","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133442603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.020-036
S. Ilizarov, V. Kupriyanov
{"title":"Timofey Ivanovich Rainoff. The Outlines of the History of Russian Philosophy of the 50–60s Years","authors":"S. Ilizarov, V. Kupriyanov","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.020-036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.020-036","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131390102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.181-189
B. Mezhuyev
{"title":"Lev Shestov – On the Other Side of Good and Truth. [Review on:] Andrea Oppo. Lev Shestov: The Philosophy and Works of a Tragic Thinker. Academic Studies Press, 2020. 420 p.","authors":"B. Mezhuyev","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.181-189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.181-189","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129840628","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-30DOI: 10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.037-046
A. Ermichev
The article analyzes the concept of the “Moscow School of Metaphysics,” an expression proposed by S.L. Frank in 1932 referring to the institutionalization of the initial advancement of Russian thought in the form of a “scientific metaphysics.” S.L. Frank held the rationalism of L.M. Lopatin and the transcendentalism of S.N. Trubetskoy to be the chief methodologies of this movement. S.L. Frank’s institutional identification is judged to be one episode in the search for a general developmental pattern within Russian thought – a movement toward a scientific and systematic philosophy. In his book Russian Philosophy around S.L. Frank. Selected articles (2020) the contemporary investigator of Russian philosophy, G.E. Alyaev turned his attention to the “Moscow School of Metaphysics” as a historical and philosophical concept. Agreeing with Frank, G.E. Alyaev names the alleged participants in the school, excluding V.S. Solovyov considering him a “religious thinker.” Referring to the material in the journal Problems of Philosophy and Psychology and to the speeches of N.Ya. Grot and V.S. Solovyov, the author shows that the philosophical education of Russian society, and in particular of professional philosophers, was not at a level that allowed for the emergence of the school as a scientometric unit. With the final two decades of the nineteenth century in mind, the author prefers to speak not about the school, but about the direction of the philosophical sympathies of Russian educated society toward either positivism or metaphysics. Within the bounds of the latter, there took place a selection of methodological techniques that allowed Russian thought to move toward a scientific metaphysics. The author mentions V.S. Solovyov, with his final articles, as among those who persistently sought the principles of theoretical philosophy. The author also shows that S.L. Frank, who proposed the concept of the “Moscow Metaphysical School,” is far from precise in its application
{"title":"Critical Remarks on the Question of a “Moscow School of Metaphysics”","authors":"A. Ermichev","doi":"10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.037-046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.17588/2076-9210.2021.2.037-046","url":null,"abstract":"The article analyzes the concept of the “Moscow School of Metaphysics,” an expression proposed by S.L. Frank in 1932 referring to the institutionalization of the initial advancement of Russian thought in the form of a “scientific metaphysics.” S.L. Frank held the rationalism of L.M. Lopatin and the transcendentalism of S.N. Trubetskoy to be the chief methodologies of this movement. S.L. Frank’s institutional identification is judged to be one episode in the search for a general developmental pattern within Russian thought – a movement toward a scientific and systematic philosophy. In his book Russian Philosophy around S.L. Frank. Selected articles (2020) the contemporary investigator of Russian philosophy, G.E. Alyaev turned his attention to the “Moscow School of Metaphysics” as a historical and philosophical concept. Agreeing with Frank, G.E. Alyaev names the alleged participants in the school, excluding V.S. Solovyov considering him a “religious thinker.” Referring to the material in the journal Problems of Philosophy and Psychology and to the speeches of N.Ya. Grot and V.S. Solovyov, the author shows that the philosophical education of Russian society, and in particular of professional philosophers, was not at a level that allowed for the emergence of the school as a scientometric unit. With the final two decades of the nineteenth century in mind, the author prefers to speak not about the school, but about the direction of the philosophical sympathies of Russian educated society toward either positivism or metaphysics. Within the bounds of the latter, there took place a selection of methodological techniques that allowed Russian thought to move toward a scientific metaphysics. The author mentions V.S. Solovyov, with his final articles, as among those who persistently sought the principles of theoretical philosophy. The author also shows that S.L. Frank, who proposed the concept of the “Moscow Metaphysical School,” is far from precise in its application","PeriodicalId":445879,"journal":{"name":"Solov’evskie issledovaniya","volume":"600 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116286275","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：